On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:02:18 +0200 Jean Delvare <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:27:39 +0200, Roel Kluin wrote: > > Ok, here's for drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-pxa.c. Note that I found another, > > the last hunk. > > --------------------------->8-------------8<------------------------------ > > With `while (timeout--)' timeout reaches -1 after the loop, so the tests > > below are off by one. > > > > Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <[email protected]> > > --- > > Ben, Wolfram, I'll let you handle this one as it's an arm driver. > The patch looks OK, but the original code is weird. : static int i2c_pxa_wait_bus_not_busy(struct pxa_i2c *i2c) : { : int timeout = DEF_TIMEOUT; : : while (timeout-- && readl(_ISR(i2c)) & (ISR_IBB | ISR_UB)) { : if ((readl(_ISR(i2c)) & ISR_SAD) != 0) : timeout += 4; : : msleep(2); : show_state(i2c); : } : : if (timeout < 0) : show_state(i2c); : : return timeout < 0 ? I2C_RETRY : 0; : } The timeout+=4 inside the loop makes my brain hurt. It makes the loop potentially almost-infinite. By effectively doing timeout+=3 each time we'll break out of the loop after we've wrapped through 0x100000000 three times. Or something. Help! Also, i2c_pxa_pio_set_master() does long timeout = 2 * DEF_TIMEOUT; whereas i2c_pxa_wait_bus_not_bus() does int timeout = DEF_TIMEOUT; `int' seems an appropriate choice. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
